Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
eisfunke.com
Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
1–10 of 392 posts
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#2> The idea to get rid of having to trust centralized organizations might sound tempting, but it doesn’t work: Blockchains don’t get rid of “trust”, they just change, who has to be trusted.
> More precisely: The trust in institutions controlled by humans and bound by established laws and rules is instead replaced — by unconditional trust in the infallibility of code (“in code we trust” is a popular phrase in the scene). As code is written by humans, it’s seldom actually infallible.
> But even if all code was without mistakes, blockchains can’t do anything against threats like scams, fraud, hacking of devices with keys for the blochain or just plain old typos in a coin transfer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
"The perfect solution fallacy is a related informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented"
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#3It amazes me how polarizing blockchain and cryptocurrency is. It is to black/white, love/hate. I really don't ever remember a technology that has created such a visceral reaction from people.
I personally, believe there is a quite novel concept behind the trust-less consensus mechanisms. It amazes me that computers can come to an agreement in a hostile environment--fully decentralized.
How that is put to use in practicality maybe debatable. But I think arguments like this tend to just throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#4The first argument boils down to "I need a central entity to fix mistakes". That does not necessarily apply to everything.
An immutable ledger sounds like something that could be useful. Myself I can't think of any uses besides crypto, but the fact that I can't find any use for a technology myself doesn't turn it into "dangerous nonsense"
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#5> The idea to get rid of having to trust centralized organizations might sound tempting, but it doesn’t work: Blockchains don’t get rid of “trust”, they just change, who has to be trusted. > More precisely: The trust in institutions controlled by humans and bound by established laws and rules is instead replaced — by unconditional trust in the infallibility of code (“in code we trust” is a popular phrase in the scene…
As explained in the text: the point isn't that these problems aren't solved by blockchain, they're amplified. E.g.: scams existed without blockchain, but now they're forever and permanently engraved into the blockchain. Code was always flawed, but now a bug isn't just a bug, it's a bug in a smart contract with potentially disastrous consequences that can never be properly fixed.
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#6> The idea to get rid of having to trust centralized organizations might sound tempting, but it doesn’t work: Blockchains don’t get rid of “trust”, they just change, who has to be trusted.
What if a group of trusted organizations run a blockchain together?
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#7> The idea to get rid of having to trust centralized organizations might sound tempting, but it doesn’t work: Blockchains don’t get rid of “trust”, they just change, who has to be trusted. > More precisely: The trust in institutions controlled by humans and bound by established laws and rules is instead replaced — by unconditional trust in the infallibility of code (“in code we trust” is a popular phrase in the scene…
If they argued that Blockchain is not mature, and so (from a personal cost benefit analysis) is inferior to centralized systems, they would be on point. There is a difference between straight up pseudo science and novel developments. Conflating the two is nothing new.
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#8> The idea to get rid of having to trust centralized organizations might sound tempting, but it doesn’t work: Blockchains don’t get rid of “trust”, they just change, who has to be trusted. > More precisely: The trust in institutions controlled by humans and bound by established laws and rules is instead replaced — by unconditional trust in the infallibility of code (“in code we trust” is a popular phrase in the scene…
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#9> The idea to get rid of having to trust centralized organizations might sound tempting, but it doesn’t work: Blockchains don’t get rid of “trust”, they just change, who has to be trusted. > More precisely: The trust in institutions controlled by humans and bound by established laws and rules is instead replaced — by unconditional trust in the infallibility of code (“in code we trust” is a popular phrase in the scene…
Not sure if that fallacy applies, given that we have found ways to combat scams, fraud, etc. with the existing solutions (which are also not perfect, but at least make an attempt to cater to the fallibility of humans). In that regard, blockchain is a step backwards.
Whether "do not require trust in a centralized authority" (with caveats regarding the protocol itself set aside) is more important than "useful for humans conducting human business" (without extra layers that re-introduce centralized authority) is up to everyone to decide themselves.
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#10The first argument boils down to "I need a central entity to fix mistakes". That does not necessarily apply to everything. An immutable ledger sounds like something that could be useful. Myself I can't think of any uses besides crypto, but the fact that I can't find any use for a technology myself doesn't turn it into "dangerous nonsense"
In quite a lot of cases it's because we need someone to take responsibility for the actions of an entity, or the blame when something goes wrong. In cases like that the blockchain won't really change much, and it ends up being another technology/process that is available.
That being said, I'm sure there are other cases where the blockchain can be used. The problem is that it's currently used as the proverbial hammer, making every problem look like a nail.